You are cherrypicking. First of all, I’ve pointed out more than once than our government has deficiencies in democracy. Yet despite that, politicians still keep the vast majority of their promises- those are the studies speaking, not me. And even when they don’t keep their promises, that doesn’t in any way mean that they aren’t held accountable to the voters. After all, they still have to worry about reelection. Usually they don’t keep their promises when the known facts change- so either the voters change their opinions, or the politician trusts that they will change their opinion once the policy takes effect.

if I don’t approve of the activities of any charity, I can pull my funding and go somewhere else

Too bad that those actually affected by the charity can’t.

The moment that lenders figure out this won’t happen, credit dries up.

I’m glad to see that you are so much more knowledgeable about the financial status of the US government than all the experts. (It’s almost as if you’ve never seen a deficit before.)

The War on Poverty has given us more poverty

Did you just ignore the data I handed right to you, showing that poverty declined significantly in every country once they implemented their welfare programs? Using the far more accurate Supplemental Poverty Rate, the US poverty rate sunk like a rock from 26% to 16%, mostly due to the super-successful War on Poverty. (It is also much harder for the poverty rate to go from 20% to 10% than from 40% to 30%. And a welfare program obviously won’t cause the poverty rate to consistently decline until zero.)

The War on Drugs has given us more drugs and gangs. Prohibition didn’t get rid of alcohol

Your claim on Prohibition is silly- of course it didn’t “get rid” of alcohol, but it got rid of a great amount of alcohol- and your claim on the War on Drugs is wrong and would not be accepted by a single economist. While treatment obviously could work better than incarceration, you cannot argue that there would less drug abuse if we did nothing.